Were there any native on native massacres and genocides? >I'd

>>1958276
Yes.

The Aztecs in particular were dickheads and half the reason the Spanish won is because all their neighbours hated them so much they'd rather ally with the Spanish.

File: reds.jpg (464KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1200x1600px

>>1958276
Engines have an oral history, so there's not going to be a rich account of red v redman

Does this count?

>Introduction of European weapons and the fur trade increased competition and the severity of intertribal warfare. While the Haudenosaunee could easily obtain guns in exchange for furs from their Dutch traders in New York, the Wendat were required to profess Christianity in order to obtain a gun from their French traders in Canada. Therefore, they were unprepared, on March 16, 1649, when a Haudenosaunee war party of about 1000 entered Wendake and burned the Huron mission villages of St. Ignace and St. Louis in present-day Simcoe County, Ontario, killing about 300 people. They also killed many of the Jesuit missionaries, who have since been honored as North American Martyrs. The surviving Jesuits burned the mission after abandoning it to prevent its capture. The Iroquois attack shocked the Huron.

>By May 1, 1649, the Huron burned 15 of their villages to prevent their stores from being taken and fled as refugees to surrounding tribes. About 10,000 fled to Gahoendoe (now also called Christian Island). Most who fled to the island starved over the winter, as it was a non-productive settlement and could not provide for them. After spending the bitter winter of 1649–50 on the island, surviving Huron relocated near Quebec City, where they settled at Wendake. Absorbing other refugees, they became the Huron-Wendat Nation. Some Huron, along with the surviving Petun, whose villages the Iroquois attacked in the fall of 1649, fled to the upper Lake Michigan region, settling first at Green Bay, then at Michilimackinac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyandot_people#European_contact_and_Wyandot_dispersal

>>1958276
Yes? Aztecs were rather famous for it, Inca were less massacre more ethnic cleansing by distributing conquered populations throughout their empire for integration, Maori basically genocided the other NZ natives

>>1958276
When the British and Dutch settled South Africa there was a Black on Black genocide going on near by.

>>1958276
Yep, north american natives were apparently the most brutal to one another. This gave the settlers moral authority (in their own minds) to fuck them right up.

nomadic hunters are always short of women so they go to war and genocide the enemy men

>>1958276
Yes and very often.

They probably killed more among themselves than whitey ever did.

>>1958276
they didn't kill each other because they saw them as inferior races, neither are there any accounts of a racialization or supremacy.

regardless of violence between two groups it does not invalidate the genocide and complete oppression of Native Americans by european colonists.

thats like saying because Europeans fought wars ISIS taking over is completely valid
>>1958383
this was fueled by fur traders pitting tribes over territories to harvest finite animals.
>>1958405
there was no genocide, there were wars but it wasn't based on race. As one can see with the languages of Bantu South Africans they clearly absorbed not only the blood of but the unique characteristics of Khoisan peoples and cultures.
>>1958418
false, polygamy occurs usually in places of abundance of food resources and mostly in farmer communities. regardless most indigenous people were not primarily hunters.
>>1958432
give proof.

>>1958489
>there were wars but it wasn't based on race
They was based on ethnicity there was no kumbaya shit in Sub Saharan Africa.
> As one can see with the languages of Bantu South Africans they clearly absorbed not only the blood of but the unique characteristics of Khoisan peoples and cultures.
Native Americans speak english.

File: tmp_26044-900px-War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.svg2097651420.png (51KB, 900x636px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 900x636px

>>1958276
Yes and it still happens today.

I wanted to say Iroquois versus Huron and Algonquins, but that was British instigated still. Beaver Wars weren't really "genocide" per se of Native on Native.

Massacres in Canada? Yes.
Genocide? Sort of.

>>1958489
>they didn't kill each other because they saw them as inferior races, neither are there any accounts of a racialization or supremacy.
Neither did Europeans.
>regardless of violence between two groups it does not invalidate the genocide and complete oppression of Native Americans by european colonists.
Nobody implied that.

>>1958907
Really because the beaver wars left huge parts of the North East uninhabited

>>1958290
>Engines
It's "Injuns" you fuckwit. Jesus fuck.

>>1958502
English was in forced through assimilationist governmental policy however its a false equivalency. Conquerors don't take the languages of the conquered. Bantu did.

Also ethnicity was generally speaking flexible. It's the reason why whites "became" tribal members the same as those born into it.
>>1958913
Europeans and Americans spoke candidly about destroying a supposed inferior race and taking their resources for white people

>>1958921
kek. calm down

>>1958924
>Europeans and Americans spoke candidly about destroying a supposed inferior race and taking their resources for white people
And Indians viewed whites as a different race as well. It's impossible not to "racialize" a conflict when the warring parties are different races.
But in the end the underlying goal of both was land. It's not like whites just hated Indians and decided to take their land out of spite.

>>1958489
>this kind of cold blooded killing is different from this kind of cold blooded killing because race and stuff
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

>>1958282
That was the Incas

>>1959346
no it wasn't. incas weren't that nasty or even warlike, they just happened to have a civil war over succession just at that time.

>>1958276
You should read up on the exploits of King Kamehameha.

>>1958276
Read on the musket wars in New Zealand, Maori on Maori genocide.

The zulus with the Mfecane.
Killed a bunch of tribes, made some other migrate.
Then whitey settled in the abandoned lands.

File: ggindex.jpg (4KB, 351x144px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 351x144px

>>1958921

>>1959346
>>1959363
Yes but said civil war was HIGHLY violent and resulted in hundreds, if not thousands massacred in Atahualpa's purges in particular
That being said, the Incas didn't really do genocides. They more incorporated other tribes like the Romans did rather than attempt to erradicate or even wipe out their culture (everyone had to pay taxes to the Inca state and worship Viracocha, but the rest of your pantheon could stay)
Also truth be told the term "Inca" actually refers to the ruling tribe; even by Pachacuti's time it was already made up of a number of different tribes united by conquest/marriage

>>1958489
I feel you are a bit naive son, the world is darker as you think. Even if I agree with:
>regardless of violence between two groups it does not invalidate the genocide and complete oppression of Native Americans by european colonists.